Re: Lintian based autorejects
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:17:15PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> I'm not unsympathetic, but I personally don't mind the ftp team being
>> somewhat more proactive than that. A lot of the bugs that they've
>> marked as rejects are pretty obvious and easy-to-fix bugs, and I'm
>> not sure why the project as a whole should spend time filing bugs
>> about them when the Lintian checks in question have an essentially 0%
>> false positive rate and the fix is fairly obvious. Even if it's not
>> something that's going to break the package, why not do it right when
>> it's fairly easy to do so?
> Dear Russ and everybody,
> I had a very brief look at the DD-list for the packages with
> unacceptable Lintian tags, and my gut feeling is that it contains a
> lot of unmaintained packages (maybe an UDD expert can
> confirm). Therefore, rejecting uploads is no incentive for them to be
If they are unmaintained, nothing we do can make the maintaier
fix things. At least filing bugs makes the problems visible, and we
ensure that the next drive-by upload will actually fix these policy
> With this in mind, I think that Stefano's proposition to implicate the
> QA team in the management of which tag gets in the blacklist makes a
> lot of sense, as it will help the people who will do the hard work of
> orphaning, MIA checking, and bug fixing to prioritise and orgainse
> their efforts.
Why can't the presence of appropriate bugs help these folks do
the same thing?
"You boys lookin' for trouble?" "Sure. Whaddya got?" -- Marlon Brando,
"The Wild Ones"
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C